Is progressive creation possible?

Does scientific evidence really prove the theory of evolution of any form? Could not there be Old Earth Creationism without macro-evolution of any kind? Where are the so-called missing links? We should remember Pilt-Down Man, an embarrassment to science? Why could not Progressive Creationism: Non-Common Ancestry be true? I will be kind enough to give you a clue. Languages that are related resemble. Does this exist among living beings? Does this lead to the concept of design? if no, tell me why and do not bluff! Also, have any of you actually seen a transitional form? Be honest now! Why could not Hugh Ross be right? Weiss jemand die Antwort auf diese Fragen? Seid ehrlich! Frohe Weihnacht
Ich moechte alle Antworten auf Deutsch haben, wenn Sie das tun koennen?

Henry, you are suffering under MULTIPLE and GRAVE misunderstandings. Read this article … and be free!

Sample comment:

“For example, in human evolution, bipedality evolved very quickly but large brain size evolved slowly and later on. So we will never find a fossil with both a mid-sized brain and an average adoption of bipedality; its just not how it happened. Similarly, we wouldn’t necessarily expect the transitional form between maniraptors and birds to be something with medium length claws, medium length tail and legs and slightly asymmetric wing feathers. Archaeopteryx exemplifies this, with its mix of more bird like features, like a wishbone and asymmetric flight feathers, with more primitive characters, like a long tail and legs.”

[IMAGE: Peter Sheldon’s landmark study of welsh trilobites is a great example of gradual evolution in the fossil record]

“Many creationists these days seem to have quietly abandoned their objection to evolution at small scales. God knows why, but I presume its because the ark would sink with the sheer weight of beetles, molluscs and lice (every animal would of course have to be infested with every sort of parasite imaginable, of course). To do this, they seem to have invented a dichotomy between macroevolution and microevolution, envisaging them as different processes. They are both valid terms in evolutionary biology, but both at heart driven by the same inherent processes at viewed at different scales, and thus the dichotomy is false in this sense.”


No. I just wanted to get some reactions. Please join us on “The Evolution of Human Language.” I hope to see you there.
Oh, aren’t evolutionary creationists also creationists?

1 Like

hey henry. no, there is no scientific evidence for the main evolution claim (one family change into another). so the best explanation is the speciel creation model.

we also know that there is no step wise between them.

I wish to thank you for your good answer, my friend. God bless

I will make sure to read your article. I am sure that it is interesting. I will need to read it tomorrow. I caught pink eye and have a great headache. If I have ever misjudged you, please accept my apologies. Take care, George.

1 Like

Yes there is in less than 50 years:

as well as this:

they are still a stickleback. so no- its not evolution.


Thank you for the examples which with many others clearly demonstrate that evolutionary change is closely related to environmental change. I really fail to understand how Dawkins & Co. can ignore or deny this scientific fact.

Just because a new species is not created does not mean that it is not evolutionary change. Anew species is created when there is an environmental barrier leading to isolation, so ecology is the determining factor.

its a variations. but you can call it anything you want…

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.